Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Toni Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > with your comments, I have produceds a second version of the patch, > which includes the following changes: IPsec isn't really my area, but some questions: 1) Why are these flows "illegal"? 0/0 -> 0/0 seems like it might have a use as a shortha

Cabinas móviles de vigilancia

This is a message in multipart MIME format. Your mail client should not be displaying this. Consider upgrading your mail client to view this message correctly.

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

Hi, On Mon, 12.04.2010 at 09:37:18 +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > On Mon, 12.04.2010 at 06:54:31 +0200, Bret S. Lambert > wrote: > > $ man 9 inet_ntoa > > man: no entry for inet_ntoa in section 9 of the manual. > > Patrick is right, though. I have to retract this statement after seeing that in

Re: re(4) diff needs testing.

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 08:46:16PM -0400, Brad wrote: > Please test the following diff with any re(4) adapters. > This is an adaption of some code from FreeBSD to help with > identification of certain chipsets. Just make sure the > driver still attaches Ok. There should be no change > with the dmes

%50 indirimli erken rezervasyon fırsatlarını sizde yakalayın

2010 Erken Rezarvasyon F}rsatlar} Ba~lad}... http://tatilbudur.rvs0.com/trc/sv/LT?T=1bdd3&R=10842862 Tatil Budur duyurular} igin e-postas} almak istemiyorsan}z |yelikten g}kmak igin l|tfen t}klay}n http://tatilbudur.rvs0.net/frm/sv/sb?fid=1021941&rr=10842862&rk=WfCq&c=220999 5

Re: [patch] ldp & ldpctl implicit null, inline patches

Il giorno dom, 11/04/2010 alle 10.21 +0200, Thomas Habets ha scritto: > I played around a bit with ospfd and ldpd against real cisco routers, and > noticed some strange things. Glad to see that someone is testing MPLS and ldpd. That is going to help us. Keep in mind that it is still in a developm

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

Hi, with your comments, I have produceds a second version of the patch, which includes the following changes: On Sun, 11.04.2010 at 20:47:38 +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > * No IPv6 support (I have no clue). * tried to add IPv6 support * Logging is still not very useful, but at least it does no

Πτήσεις εσωτερικού από 39 ευρώ & πτήσεις εξωτερικού από 68 ευρώ!

E\m dem lpoqe_te ma de_te to emgleqytij| dekt_o j\mte click ed~ Cq^coqg Amaf^tgsg T}por: Apk| Le Epistqov^

İSTANBUL-DAN RUSYA-YA BİR GÜNDE KARGO SERVİSİ

Sanex Express SANEX EXPRESS LTD (TURKEY) Call Center:0090 212 474 65 65 Pbx :0090 212 655 90 73 :0090 212 655 90 83 Fax:0090 212 655 54 37 Office Gsm:0090 542 318 05 05 Msn:sanexexpr...@hotmail.com Web:www.sanexexpress.com.tr SANEX CARGO ]le Paketler Ertesi G|n RUSYA 'da Rusya ya Gidecek Za

Re: 4.7 pf

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:36:35PM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote: > there is no mention of the "pass out on $ext_if nat-to 1.2.3.4" way of > doing NAT in the pf.conf manpage for a "vanilla" firewall. There is one > use of the construct but it refers to an unlikely scenario of NATting > to a "fake inte

4.7 pf

Although henning@ (in http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=125181847818600&w=2) said: 8><--- snip the new NAT code is very very very flexible. every matching "match" rule changes the adress on the fly (not really, but that is what it looks like for subsequent rules), and you can nat or rdr multiple t

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

Hi, On Mon, 12.04.2010 at 06:54:31 +0200, Bret S. Lambert wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 01:43:11PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 09:40:45PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > > > I already suspected something like this, but this behaviour is not > > > documented in th